>Your lordships enemies captured your dams upriver and destroyed them, flooding your villages and castle. >Your wife is subsequently raped in the chaos, your children are killed in front of you and your enemies throw you in a dungeon to be tortured for years.
>Bottom right
best among the options
just make sure to build super-tall Trump walls.
>bottom left
would seem the safest at first glance, but it looks to be a dry mountain, so, water and food are going to be a pain in the ass to acquire.
>Your moat disappears in a dry season due to no replishment method and your enemies waltz up to your walls with the convenient earth ramps you built for them. >You die painfully.
Not even that, the enemy could just fill in the moat. Crazy shit has happened in seiges. The israelites set up on a mountain and the russians built a ramp and proceeded to kill everyone for making them do it.
imagine the bloodthirst blueballs of building that fricking ramp for over a year while these savages throw rocks and literal shit the whole time and when you get there everyone's already dead.
I'd have ordered a pig carcass for every body and bury their bodies sewn into the carcasses, just to frick their souls over.
God damn I'm very moronic. The Romans... I didn't even put the picture I wanted in the post either.
>kill everyone
The Romans didn't kill anyone at Masada, anon. When they finally finished their ramp after 3 years, they found that the zealots in the fortress had killed themselves (after killing their own families) rather than be taken.
I think you also want to pick a castle that has long term growth potential since probably you're going to be planning for your kids, grandkids, and great grandkids to rule to adjacent lands from there.
castle 5 definitely has the possibility to become wealthy and afford to replace the walls with stone
I assume that water flows in from the hills when it rains and it doesn't really dry out unless they planned really poorly but siege works could attempt to fill in the moat. Ideally because you control a lot of land and the inside of your castle is spacious with fields your army has a lot of horses and you ride out regularly to proactively prevent opponents from being able to get into a position to besiege you and the fort itself is just a place to celebrate and sleep it off after a successful campaign - should therefore be a place that is actually comfy to live in
>enemies surround an elevated position >die from archers
3
Water proves defense, but you also have an easy side for restocking supplies.
Mountain fortress is a death trap. Restocking would be a nightmare, so you'd only ever have a few months of supplies at the most. It's be too easy to just surround you and wait you out.
Dude it's a fricking dessert. They're screwed out there with hot days and frozen nights. Try supplying a whole army with water in thr dessert back then. My boys don't do shit and kickback, watch attrition kill the enemy. I expect a forced attack
Bottom left, but the interior is staggered land plots like Machu Picchu. Grow a shitload of sweet potatoes for the tubers and the leaves, frick yeah.
Get the phosphorous out of chicken shit for our fertilizer, and dump the residual waste at any c**ts at the bottom of our walls. Oxen will provide milk, and also work the wheels that will pump water to the top of the structure to trickle down each plot to a reservoir at the bottom.
Who's laughin' now?
I planned motherfricker. I prepped.
Now enjoy the desert, and the rain of boiled chickenshit.
3
Water proves defense, but you also have an easy side for restocking supplies.
Mountain fortress is a death trap. Restocking would be a nightmare, so you'd only ever have a few months of supplies at the most. It's be too easy to just surround you and wait you out.
no mutt OP
but to be fair most castles in Ex Yugoslavia were build by either the late Romans
or the Venetians, which build many fortresses as defense against... the slavs
and the well preserved stuf was actively used during the Austrian Hungarian Rule (either military or tourism)
one pitch covered arrow could bring that b***h down
Sirs I have watched lotgh. You bait your enemies to attacking that location and then frick them in the ass as they are there. You cannot do that strategy with any of the other forts. This strategy also has the fastest outcome
it's in a desert, you can't bait people to attack it because it's probably worthless strategically
even then, just blast it with some rockets
https://i.imgur.com/nHx6955.jpg
Sigiriya in Sri Lanka, its right in the middle of the island. Even if you had trebuchets and an army of 100,000 men. What are you gonna do ?
starve it out and occupy the surrounding lands, men don't like watching as their families and homes are destroyed so they'd be forced to surrender eventually
looks like they have some farm stuff going on there, stuff grows pretty fast there. i'd assume they'd have enough dried stuff like rice, etc etc in storage to last ages and ages.
no point in surrendering if their families are being murdered because they would just assume youd slaughter them after they surrendered. would make them turtle harder.
could have a legit king up there who is respected by the land while you get whittled away by guerilla fighters and jungle fever. they are pissed off because you are killing them remorselessly
yeah, most of those points are valid but in reality there's no actual prospect of victory for the defenders if the attackers are determined enough to carry on a siege for years (assuming they don't have rockets etc)
11 months ago
Anonymous
if a siege goes on for years then it becomes a question of if its even worth it for the attackers. while its always worth it for the defenders who are in the defense of their lives.
the purpose of it is to have some royalty there, and maybe one of their allies will come 5 months later to help them, sometimes even much later than that. and there is the price of having to pay those soldiers. a lot of the time they are promised spoils. if its dragging on forever and no sign of success then they will have wasted their time and risked their lives for nothing. they would not be happy
11 months ago
Anonymous
Candia lasted for 21 years, a determined enough attacker will always win so long as they are also competent.
unlike Candia, Sigiriya doesn't have access to the sea and was built way before the usage of gunpowder in sieges so it'd be largely unprepared for such equipment.
Every desert has water, and based on the right side of the image they have many canyons. I'm only going off speculation but my strategy is always to win, not to be held up in a much better and strongly fortified outpost for longer times. That bottom left is also a smaller fort (with narrow entryway) which indicates the force attacking it would be around the same size of the present landscape. By hiding your forces elsewhere which here I am assuming you can, it deflects any hostiles via an artificial choke point. You would also only need a garrison of 30 men to hold the location until the main force's entry. As others have said there would be fires, yes - but the groundwork for the fort is not wood, no structural integrity in any universe would let that fort remain on rock without having a strong foundation. This is why I assume there are plenty of bedrock passages.
A lot of speculation on my part, I know. But I am going off of experience here and while the other fort's have better face value, it's easier to pollute and spread disease. It would only better as a holding fractionally, but with no maneuvering capability until the fort is taken or outside help arrives.
gunpowder largely invalidates all of this, you can only strike with hidden troops for so many time before the attackers adapt to that as well.
11 months ago
Anonymous
I'm not basing my strategy on modern weapons. The two people present in the pic are the only two humans in all the forts and they look tribal, nomadic. Definitely not modern. If we are talking a semi modern situation (with gun powder) then I wouldn't pick any of these forts to begin with.
Every desert has water, and based on the right side of the image they have many canyons. I'm only going off speculation but my strategy is always to win, not to be held up in a much better and strongly fortified outpost for longer times. That bottom left is also a smaller fort (with narrow entryway) which indicates the force attacking it would be around the same size of the present landscape. By hiding your forces elsewhere which here I am assuming you can, it deflects any hostiles via an artificial choke point. You would also only need a garrison of 30 men to hold the location until the main force's entry. As others have said there would be fires, yes - but the groundwork for the fort is not wood, no structural integrity in any universe would let that fort remain on rock without having a strong foundation. This is why I assume there are plenty of bedrock passages.
A lot of speculation on my part, I know. But I am going off of experience here and while the other fort's have better face value, it's easier to pollute and spread disease. It would only better as a holding fractionally, but with no maneuvering capability until the fort is taken or outside help arrives.
I'm saying you could potentially use the star pattern in a larger group of fortifications. Not one concrete structure. Star forts designed for 200m engagement range obviously won't work
The French tried that with the Maginot line and got mogged by the Germans when they just drove their tanks around the line. It's not worth the resources that could be put into tanks or aircraft.
11 months ago
Anonymous
That's just moving the goalposts, as it were. This scenario assumes the concept of fortification has some use somewhere, such as in youkraine
11 months ago
Anonymous
>That's just moving the goalposts >some use somewhere, such as in youkraine
the Steppe is not conducive to castle warfare, Ukraine is flat. completely flat for 100s of kilometers. the perfect terrain for tank warfare. any defensive structure you build can be rendered irrelevant by changing frontlines, there are only a few points in Ukraine where it would be somewhat worthwhile to build a fort and those places already have them.
11 months ago
Anonymous
But if they ever dig a trench in ukraine again (not likely as your analysis shows) why not make it star shaped if you have to defend a town near the front. Tokmak has something similar
11 months ago
Anonymous
there are trenches all across the frontlines of Ukraine, when building trenches you need to maintain and man them so the enemy can't take them and use them against you, anything you build today can be used against you tomorrow, so just spamming trenches against a numerically superior enemy is a quick way to surround yourself.
11 months ago
Anonymous
here is a real Ukrainian star fort
11 months ago
Anonymous
How much did Americans pay to build that?
11 months ago
Anonymous
USA didn't exist when it was built
11 months ago
Anonymous
so you didnt follow the current ukrainian war at all?
11 months ago
Anonymous
I do follow it and I know it's a meatgrinder
11 months ago
Anonymous
why isnt the steppe used to manuever?
and why do both sides try to go head first through the enemies most fortified areas
11 months ago
Anonymous
you'd have to ask the geniuses throwing away the lives of their men
11 months ago
Anonymous
so it worked?
muhh they bypassed it, yeah by invading a whole different country to do so, but they didnt conquer it
11 months ago
Anonymous
one world trade center is literally built to eat aircraft for breakfast. try again
11 months ago
Anonymous
too bad it's an ugly pos. Should've built three. Osama won
11 months ago
Anonymous
obama sin biden's trebuchet arrow missed building 7 and ended up in pennsylvania due to the common man
11 months ago
Anonymous
tbf tower builds are overpowered as frick
11 months ago
Anonymous
Which is why Allies basically ignored them and kept on the offensive until the tower ran out of supply.
11 months ago
Anonymous
is it true that the formula used for the concrete in these towers were gone and cannot be replicated?
11 months ago
Anonymous
No. The thing that made them so tough is that is is just reinforced concrete that is tens of metres thick, that's all.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Nah, you're thinking Roman concrete. "Blue" concrete has a higher cement content.
11 months ago
Anonymous
We know how to make roman concrete, its just wildly impractical for any project were either of a 10 year or longer curing time or having ready access to ultra fine ash from an active volcano would be a problem.
11 months ago
Anonymous
It's not impractical, we just have better cements outside a single particular application - long-term submerged construction.
The modern version of a starfort is having defensive structures recessed within concrete. Airfields, missile tubes, autocannons, railguns, radar/e-war, etc.
Modern military structures designed to resist blasts and impacts still employ the sloping sides but are shaped as frustrum instead of stars because the sharp concrete is no longer expected to be worth the effort.
Yes and no, they don't work against anything like a peer opponent, someone with artillery and air power, but they do work against irregular opponents. picrel is a 2010s vintage french starfort from one of their counter terrorism campaigns in Africa.
>Why
It's not real, it's concept art for a tourist site restoration of an ancient Thracian city that was flooded to make a reservoir.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seuthopolis
They found the city while preparing the dam and only gave archaeologists a few years to study it before flooding it.
The project is apparently going forward though.
I'm kind of feeling bottom right. >stone walls >surrounded by water fed from a river >decent area for farms
Middle is bigger, but the mote doesn't have a visible source feeding it, so it might run dry. Also, the walls seem to be made of wood.
Top left is too small.
Top right is too small and made of crap wood.
Middle is bigger, but the mote doesn't have a visible source feeding it, so it might run dry. Also, the walls seem to be made of wood.
Bottom left, while formidable, lacks any apparent natural resources.
Middle is max comfy
Seeing tall stone walls is meh but giant earthen dykes with some additional wall is great. Top right is good too but not enough space to run around.
>Voluntarily Post-agrarianism
A sad, yet stable view of the future if humans who use technology select themselves for extinction. >Interplametary colonial homeostasis
The most likely and sadly uninspiring trajectory of humanity. Most planets are boring barren rocks. >K-selective techno Darwinist-Exitism
Nukes have pretty much guaranteed our own destruction. If humans are to live past another 10,000 years, humans must escape earth and be able to hide/shield themselves from genocidal cultures that are doomed to emerge. >Panspermia Genisis re-enactment society
The holy grail for humans is for is to play God with the near infinite amounts of planets and possible lifeforms evolution can manifest. A never ending cycle of learning to help us evolve into the next stage of consciousness.
You guys realize that Dyson Sphere mean you are building one and have no reason to stop at one, if only as a backup?
Terraforming planet is pointless since you'll want technology anyway, sure everyone love gardening but by that point a simulation will just save you time.
In fact Terraforming might be no from Neo-pastoralism where "maintaining medicine" mean keeping your God-like immortal body.
Luxury ruralism seems max comfy
Nearest neighbor isn't for 50 miles, auto hauler just took off with your harvest for another planet, you're sitting on the roof of your two story ranch house watching the bots pull in to refuel for the evening shift. The sun is setting, wind is a nice calm breeze with white fluffy clouds streaking across the sky, lemonade in your hand, there's a pot pie cooling on the countertop downstairs and a movie already picked out.
Life is good.
Yeah. The Culture series depicted this pretty well. Chill out on your robot-managed estate in an idyllic corner of a ringworld. Teleport into town when you get stir-crazy and need company.
<Dyson Sphere Manager>
<pause all simulations>
<select all simulations>
<delete_entity -publish_report>
<report: all simulations quality +90%>
<resume all simulations>
>transparent plastic shells in you choice of colors >mp3 players >unergonomic UIs with buttons that look like glass
We were cheated out of our birthright
>the iPhone goes down as a wacky idea that fell to the more practical flip-phone >windows 11 is a stand alone product and clippy has been the official mascot for years >VR is clunky and cumbersome and that's the only way to shop online >endless chilled dnb piped into common areas 24/7
Top Left is clearly the best option. First it is stone walls. Second it has two rivers making it difficult for the water supply to be cut off. It has a small access road that runs along the wall and will make it difficult for many men to amass on either the gate or walls allowing archers to cut them down. The river seems deep on the right and the ridge indicates that they cannot move an army down its slopes to man launches so I have to worry about boats from only one direction. It is also easy to get resupply as allies can use either river to travel down it to attempt to resupply us. We can also attempt to fish at night with nets as there is the crane gate in the wall that fishermen can descent at night and attempt to get some additional food into the fortress. If the enemy tries to harass they have to run along the tight shore while getting peppered with arrows.
The enemy have a slight advantage in the ridge next to my fortress top wall allowing them to fire arrows into the fortress easier. But compared to some of the drawbacks of the other forts I think it is minor.
None. I'd much rather have a well-trained citizenry who are properly indoctrinated and willing to fight. Lycurgus of Sparta had the right idea: tear down the walls and the false security they provide and make the citizenry become a living wall against foreign invaders.
Is that castle/monastery actually unimpregnable? With 14th century tech and logistics I mean.
It's impossible to siege effectively due to the flooding and can be easily resupplied during high tide.
any large force trying to march across the mud flats would lose all cohesion very quickly and arrive at the wall extremely fatigued.
you could launch small boats with raiding parties during high tide, but the defenders would easily spot you from their vantage point and could concentrate their defenses quickly.
I've been thinking about this for years, and I can't come up with a plan that seems like it would defeat St. Michel.
You say water is your friend and then rate the one without a stream as the best one? That moat is so stagnant I’m getting tuberculosis from the thumbnail
Smart placement of the gate on the top left, any force wanting to go through the gate would be funneled with their backs against the water.
Goods from ships are also craned in from the docks so there isn't a second entrance for the enemy to breach.
>Frick, how are we gonna get the Japs out of there? >Pour a shitload of fuel down into the fort from the top and light it up with a time bomb after all our guys get to a safe distance
Brutal. Talk about fried rice.
I take the castle on a hill. If i would want to invade the other stuff i tell the men that you could die in a blink of an eye but you can also build something for a while. I wouldnt use ladders but rather ramps that suit the height of those walls.
Middle one for the farmland potential. Would add beacon towers and guard towers, an underground section also dig the water pit deeper + wider so that the water level is below ground and can't be built over so quickly.
That was the point of the line iirc, to make the G*rms avoid the literal Great Wall of Guns and herd them into pre-planned killzones.
It's just that no one thought the G*rms would drive their armored battalions through a fricking forest and give the assembled armies a collective wedgie.
Belgium didn't build their planned section of the line, and problems with communication and lack of initiative on the part of the French command allowed the Germans to pass through the Ardennes unopposed. German High Command itself considered attacking through the Ardennes as massive gamble and were shocked by its success.
I think the other powers allowed Belgium to pass on their segment for the exact same reason. The idea that any nation could move an army, much less a mechanized army, through the Ardennes was considered such a pipedream at the time that building fortifications in the area would be like putting anti-tank mines in the Grand Canyon.
The belgians did originally build their section of the Maginot Line, but they built it in land that they had gained from germany as WW1 reperations. When they gave it back to germany in the 30s, they ended up giving up their part of the defence as well. That's why they instead relied on a mobile army, supported by the British Expeditionary Force (that the Belgiuns insisted couldnt enter their country unless war was declared) that got it's shit kicked in by the more mobile and less fractured German Panzer Corps in less than three weeks.. The entire War in France was lost because of the fricking Belgians.
#
To build something like that, did the French just build a massive hole and put the defenses inside it then cover it or did they do it via tunnels and whatnot?
1 and 5 look cozy, and you can come out of your little secret door to do some fly fishing.
3 looks like the water will get fetid and not support life.
4 is neat, but what will you eat?
Here is Karlsborgs fortress, still in use by the military, it's basically a little town hidden behind some very impressive earthwork and walls, this pic does not do it justice so i will post a few more, i would recommend you google it and check it out tho
Bottom left, but the interior is staggered land plots like Machu Picchu. Grow a shitload of sweet potatoes for the tubers and the leaves, frick yeah.
Get the phosphorous out of chicken shit for our fertilizer, and dump the residual waste at any c**ts at the bottom of our walls. Oxen will provide milk, and also work the wheels that will pump water to the top of the structure to trickle down each plot to a reservoir at the bottom.
>turn on all the water >run out of water immediately, killing every single person in a week instead of keeping them alive indefinitely
How stupid is this concept?
the waterfall was used as a ritual display of power to cement Imortan Joes position as Prophet and Patriarch of the War Boys. It was done for entirely religious and political reasons.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah but it was still really inefficient
11 months ago
Anonymous
post apocalyptic dieselpunk isn't supposed to be orderly or efficient, they're techno-barbarians, that's the point.
That couldnt possibly be a natural reservoir due to the geography so somebody created a reservoir in that rock formation and pumped in water from beneath the ground.
It's totally feasible that in a postapoc situation all human-made wells are dry and only the few people who can drill extremely deep wells with surviving equipment can claim everything left of the natural groundwater supply (the process of drawing groundwater would also draw the waterline down, leaving any nearby wells even further away from it)
What I'm saying here is, it has to be the well that immortan joe is monopolizing, and not just the reserves. He fills the reservoir regularly and wastes most of it as a show of power. She is also wasting the water as a show of power because even if Furiosa is a better ruler she is still establishing her power - but she has a deep well to use to actually distribute water from then on
>arid location means that enemies cannot hide in forests, have to approach in plain sight >tall design means you can rain down arrows at enemies from a long distance and too tall for siegecraft >lots of internal space to stockpile resources >lack of resources in the surrounding area means that sieges cannot utilize existing farmland or hunt, burning through resources quickly >water supply cannot be sabotaged or poisoned due to using groundwater wells underneath the fortress >no rivers so immune to naval attack (heavy cannons mounted in ships that can break through walls) >enemy cannot break a dam upstream and flood your fortress >hidden caves in natural rock can be used to escape is absolutely needed
You could put mud/plaster on the outside, same like wattle & daub.
But yes, it's really dumb (outrageously expensive and less effective) to use wood instead of stone/bricks if you're building fortifications in a desert environment.
The thing that amazed me about these is that the side that faces the enemy is buried under a small hill. Each bunker is completly protected from direct fire from the enemy. It has a couple of small turrets on the roof to cover that approach, but the bunkers main weapon ports (MGs, autocannons, mortars, etc) point sideways, to hose the land just in front of it's neighbours. They formed an interlocking chain across along most of the french/german border, with additionally support from heavy artillery bunkers set a fire miles back. They were the reason why the germans went around the sides through the Ardennes and Belgium, looping around behind the North part of the Maginot line after kicking the Belgies and Brits out of the way in just a couple of weeks. After Dunkirk, some forts carried on fighting for over a month afterwards, surviving constant 88 fire and stuka bombings.
Top left, plain as day. Could block the waterway quite easily if you're going to be attacked, to prevent any ships coming down it. Then all you have to do is defend the section facing land.
Bottom left really looks like a fantasy design - does anybody know if the picture is related to a real structure? >Choose your fortress
3 or 7 as both of them are capable of exploiting & controling their waterways.
Bottom right
It has a nice water supply
>Your lordships enemies captured your dams upriver and destroyed them, flooding your villages and castle.
>Your wife is subsequently raped in the chaos, your children are killed in front of you and your enemies throw you in a dungeon to be tortured for years.
Try again
>Mega Dams
>14th century.
Lmao, lol.
first you should just have a nice day you pathetic cuckold
second see
you braindead moron
>Bottom right
best among the options
just make sure to build super-tall Trump walls.
>bottom left
would seem the safest at first glance, but it looks to be a dry mountain, so, water and food are going to be a pain in the ass to acquire.
left
Yes, but so will your enemies...
>bottom left
Just build wells
wells can be poisoned or dry out, what now homie ?
Dig more deeply.
Poisoning a well must be done before you leave the area, so you have to have possession of it in the first place.
>water and food are going to be a pain in the ass to acquire.
And easy to deny in a siege.
Leaving them to surrender or perish.
While fresh running water can even power mills.
You have the benefit of the moat, but it's also running water.
In medieval war, this war normal
But this what ISIS did in Damascus
They poisoned fresh water springs with oil
In modern times, this is just backwards and barbaric
Because we have republics and democracies not medieval societies
>In medieval war, this was* normal
So was burning witches at the stake
These days, we have nuclear weapons
Instead of steep walls you have to climb over
In a nuclear apocalypse world, or total collapse of society, I'd still go with the river moat one.
Agreed
EZ
that thing's a nightmare to defend
that water supply can be poisoned and tained.
bottom left will have an internal well from ground water which is safe and secure.
bottom right
in addition to a river usually means trade, so more taxes
more money means more mercenary and thus more safety
also no one want to be a poorgay
Seems like a wise course of action to me, I'd support your decision
*orders my army to shit and piss just upstream of your fort for a few weeks*
ggez
>no land supply route
shiggy
just build a bridge, you can even add a gatehouse or two
Circular with moat. Has the most arable land so I can't be sieged.
It's also made out of wood, stupidass.
>Your moat disappears in a dry season due to no replishment method and your enemies waltz up to your walls with the convenient earth ramps you built for them.
>You die painfully.
AGAIN
Not even that, the enemy could just fill in the moat. Crazy shit has happened in seiges. The israelites set up on a mountain and the russians built a ramp and proceeded to kill everyone for making them do it.
>russians
>russians
lel
God damn I'm very moronic. The Romans... I didn't even put the picture I wanted in the post either.
That mound of dirt on the right, that was the roman ramp.
>A fricking ramp
imagine the bloodthirst blueballs of building that fricking ramp for over a year while these savages throw rocks and literal shit the whole time and when you get there everyone's already dead.
I'd have ordered a pig carcass for every body and bury their bodies sewn into the carcasses, just to frick their souls over.
>If the mountain won't come to the romans the romans must come to the mountain
>built a ramp
Russia just went full fortnite on them
it was the Romans, anon made a minor mistake
From the thumbnail I expected the crawling zigger from that one painting.
Didn't the israelites end up killing themselves anyway? So they built a ramp and didn't even get the pleasure of killing them for making them do it.
>kill everyone
The Romans didn't kill anyone at Masada, anon. When they finally finished their ramp after 3 years, they found that the zealots in the fortress had killed themselves (after killing their own families) rather than be taken.
>the russians
I think you also want to pick a castle that has long term growth potential since probably you're going to be planning for your kids, grandkids, and great grandkids to rule to adjacent lands from there.
castle 5 definitely has the possibility to become wealthy and afford to replace the walls with stone
I assume that water flows in from the hills when it rains and it doesn't really dry out unless they planned really poorly but siege works could attempt to fill in the moat. Ideally because you control a lot of land and the inside of your castle is spacious with fields your army has a lot of horses and you ride out regularly to proactively prevent opponents from being able to get into a position to besiege you and the fort itself is just a place to celebrate and sleep it off after a successful campaign - should therefore be a place that is actually comfy to live in
>easily seiged by a small force due to only 1 exit
You'll be needing some cows to go with that. Maybe piles of salt to preserve your crops?
Realistically how big of a population could middle one support with that much walled land?
Top left is good too
Bottom left because it looks like a Death Star from Star Wars
And by Death Star I presume you mean Jabba’s palace?
Checked and same pick here, based fortress monastery pilled.
Mountain fortress. Easier to build an escape than the ones with water.
>Your enemies amass themselves below your castle walls waiting for your food stores to run out.
>You die, black wife in arms from starvation.
The caves under my mountain fortress come out all over the fricking place and a pleb siege cuck like you would never see me coming or going
>enemies surround an elevated position
>die from archers
If money isn't an issue, I restock from traders.
Dude it's a fricking dessert. They're screwed out there with hot days and frozen nights. Try supplying a whole army with water in thr dessert back then. My boys don't do shit and kickback, watch attrition kill the enemy. I expect a forced attack
it's spelled "desert" you fat frick
>waiting for your food stores to run out.
See
I planned motherfricker. I prepped.
Now enjoy the desert, and the rain of boiled chickenshit.
3
Water proves defense, but you also have an easy side for restocking supplies.
Mountain fortress is a death trap. Restocking would be a nightmare, so you'd only ever have a few months of supplies at the most. It's be too easy to just surround you and wait you out.
>build fortress
>plan to escape
I think you are doing it wrong.
top left or bottom right
why couldn't slavs into castles like western europe?
most of their land is open plains/swamps
why can't mutts into geography?
kys Black personhomosexual
no mutt OP
but to be fair most castles in Ex Yugoslavia were build by either the late Romans
or the Venetians, which build many fortresses as defense against... the slavs
and the well preserved stuf was actively used during the Austrian Hungarian Rule (either military or tourism)
Bulgaria was a mistake
Slavs are the ones conquering, westoids hide in their cucksheds like sissies
Slavs are a bug race, built entirely to fellow true whites
Anyone who doesn't pick bottom left is a zoomer.
top left, looks like the castle near me, then bottom right
not a sand Black person, looks like it'd be a pain to get water and supplies to as well
Sirs I have watched lotgh. You bait your enemies to attacking that location and then frick them in the ass as they are there. You cannot do that strategy with any of the other forts. This strategy also has the fastest outcome
it's in a desert, you can't bait people to attack it because it's probably worthless strategically
even then, just blast it with some rockets
starve it out and occupy the surrounding lands, men don't like watching as their families and homes are destroyed so they'd be forced to surrender eventually
looks like they have some farm stuff going on there, stuff grows pretty fast there. i'd assume they'd have enough dried stuff like rice, etc etc in storage to last ages and ages.
no point in surrendering if their families are being murdered because they would just assume youd slaughter them after they surrendered. would make them turtle harder.
could have a legit king up there who is respected by the land while you get whittled away by guerilla fighters and jungle fever. they are pissed off because you are killing them remorselessly
yeah, most of those points are valid but in reality there's no actual prospect of victory for the defenders if the attackers are determined enough to carry on a siege for years (assuming they don't have rockets etc)
if a siege goes on for years then it becomes a question of if its even worth it for the attackers. while its always worth it for the defenders who are in the defense of their lives.
the purpose of it is to have some royalty there, and maybe one of their allies will come 5 months later to help them, sometimes even much later than that. and there is the price of having to pay those soldiers. a lot of the time they are promised spoils. if its dragging on forever and no sign of success then they will have wasted their time and risked their lives for nothing. they would not be happy
Candia lasted for 21 years, a determined enough attacker will always win so long as they are also competent.
unlike Candia, Sigiriya doesn't have access to the sea and was built way before the usage of gunpowder in sieges so it'd be largely unprepared for such equipment.
gunpowder largely invalidates all of this, you can only strike with hidden troops for so many time before the attackers adapt to that as well.
I'm not basing my strategy on modern weapons. The two people present in the pic are the only two humans in all the forts and they look tribal, nomadic. Definitely not modern. If we are talking a semi modern situation (with gun powder) then I wouldn't pick any of these forts to begin with.
>just blast it with some rockets
rockets and explosives make any defensive position unviable in the long run.
probably not for the same reason as above, rockets and explosives render most defensive positions obsolete. Whoever has the biggest bombs wins.
Trenches are cheaper than rockets
Didn't work with Bakamut. The key is to make the fortress as big as a city, which some fortresses have actually done, nabbing the best of both worlds.
Every desert has water, and based on the right side of the image they have many canyons. I'm only going off speculation but my strategy is always to win, not to be held up in a much better and strongly fortified outpost for longer times. That bottom left is also a smaller fort (with narrow entryway) which indicates the force attacking it would be around the same size of the present landscape. By hiding your forces elsewhere which here I am assuming you can, it deflects any hostiles via an artificial choke point. You would also only need a garrison of 30 men to hold the location until the main force's entry. As others have said there would be fires, yes - but the groundwork for the fort is not wood, no structural integrity in any universe would let that fort remain on rock without having a strong foundation. This is why I assume there are plenty of bedrock passages.
A lot of speculation on my part, I know. But I am going off of experience here and while the other fort's have better face value, it's easier to pollute and spread disease. It would only better as a holding fractionally, but with no maneuvering capability until the fort is taken or outside help arrives.
one pitch covered arrow could bring that b***h down
I choose victory
first thing i looked for was a star fort option
would starforts with shitload of manpads and SAMs be viable today?
we've seen in ukraine forts still exist
maybe on a larger scale
it would be more cost effective to use prefab concrete bunkers
I'm saying you could potentially use the star pattern in a larger group of fortifications. Not one concrete structure. Star forts designed for 200m engagement range obviously won't work
The French tried that with the Maginot line and got mogged by the Germans when they just drove their tanks around the line. It's not worth the resources that could be put into tanks or aircraft.
That's just moving the goalposts, as it were. This scenario assumes the concept of fortification has some use somewhere, such as in youkraine
>That's just moving the goalposts
>some use somewhere, such as in youkraine
the Steppe is not conducive to castle warfare, Ukraine is flat. completely flat for 100s of kilometers. the perfect terrain for tank warfare. any defensive structure you build can be rendered irrelevant by changing frontlines, there are only a few points in Ukraine where it would be somewhat worthwhile to build a fort and those places already have them.
But if they ever dig a trench in ukraine again (not likely as your analysis shows) why not make it star shaped if you have to defend a town near the front. Tokmak has something similar
there are trenches all across the frontlines of Ukraine, when building trenches you need to maintain and man them so the enemy can't take them and use them against you, anything you build today can be used against you tomorrow, so just spamming trenches against a numerically superior enemy is a quick way to surround yourself.
here is a real Ukrainian star fort
How much did Americans pay to build that?
USA didn't exist when it was built
so you didnt follow the current ukrainian war at all?
I do follow it and I know it's a meatgrinder
why isnt the steppe used to manuever?
and why do both sides try to go head first through the enemies most fortified areas
you'd have to ask the geniuses throwing away the lives of their men
so it worked?
muhh they bypassed it, yeah by invading a whole different country to do so, but they didnt conquer it
one world trade center is literally built to eat aircraft for breakfast. try again
too bad it's an ugly pos. Should've built three. Osama won
obama sin biden's trebuchet arrow missed building 7 and ended up in pennsylvania due to the common man
tbf tower builds are overpowered as frick
Which is why Allies basically ignored them and kept on the offensive until the tower ran out of supply.
is it true that the formula used for the concrete in these towers were gone and cannot be replicated?
No. The thing that made them so tough is that is is just reinforced concrete that is tens of metres thick, that's all.
Nah, you're thinking Roman concrete. "Blue" concrete has a higher cement content.
We know how to make roman concrete, its just wildly impractical for any project were either of a 10 year or longer curing time or having ready access to ultra fine ash from an active volcano would be a problem.
It's not impractical, we just have better cements outside a single particular application - long-term submerged construction.
The modern version of a starfort is having defensive structures recessed within concrete. Airfields, missile tubes, autocannons, railguns, radar/e-war, etc.
Modern military structures designed to resist blasts and impacts still employ the sloping sides but are shaped as frustrum instead of stars because the sharp concrete is no longer expected to be worth the effort.
No you would want a Polygonal fort instead which were the ones that replaced the Starforts of old.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygonal_fort
Yes and no, they don't work against anything like a peer opponent, someone with artillery and air power, but they do work against irregular opponents. picrel is a 2010s vintage french starfort from one of their counter terrorism campaigns in Africa.
You just fricking know they are so fricking smug in their star fort
The Aztecs did this. It did not go well.
No they didn’t, and star forts were successful well after the Aztecs were wiped out.
thee Aztecs lost because of disease and having made too many enemies not because their forts were bad
The Aztecs were also morons who didn’t have domesticated animals or steel. They cared more about ritual sacrifice than fighting effectively
if y'all Black folk come to my house i'll break the dijks and flood the polders
Oui
Ah yes, the shuriken fort
Timeless
I now have priapism
Bottom left
Why
>captcha: assmkk
>Why
It's not real, it's concept art for a tourist site restoration of an ancient Thracian city that was flooded to make a reservoir.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seuthopolis
They found the city while preparing the dam and only gave archaeologists a few years to study it before flooding it.
The project is apparently going forward though.
>Seuthopolis
>Seaopolis
Kino.
>fields inside the fortifications
Frick that! Filthy peasants belong OUTSIDE of the walls!
I'm kind of feeling bottom right.
>stone walls
>surrounded by water fed from a river
>decent area for farms
Middle is bigger, but the mote doesn't have a visible source feeding it, so it might run dry. Also, the walls seem to be made of wood.
Top left is too small.
Top right is too small and made of crap wood.
Middle is bigger, but the mote doesn't have a visible source feeding it, so it might run dry. Also, the walls seem to be made of wood.
Bottom left, while formidable, lacks any apparent natural resources.
Sigiriya in Sri Lanka, its right in the middle of the island. Even if you had trebuchets and an army of 100,000 men. What are you gonna do ?
>What are you gonna do
pass by it, they cant even raid out of that thing effectivly
Build a ramp.
t. Lucius Flavius Silva
Build a wall around it and starve them out.
If reinforcements came, just build another wall the other way.
based trump strat
>He's not sitting on a fifty year Pemmican supply
NGMI
has there ever been a case in history where the reinforcements build a 4th wall around the besiegers and starved them out?
kinda
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alesia
That would be kino
Smoke em out
looks pretty climbable to me and very hard to defend from the top.
also does it have a well? without a well it's useless.
This anon
See: Siege of Masada.
7, not even a question
Bottom right. Protected by water but connected to a river which is conducive for trade
Middle is max comfy
Seeing tall stone walls is meh but giant earthen dykes with some additional wall is great. Top right is good too but not enough space to run around.
Post-scarcity neo-Victorian perma-academia for me, boss.
post-Clarkian-singularity thaumatarchy
Voluntarist post agrarianism is probably most comfy
Panspermia genesis re-enactment would probably be pretty fun and kino
The only right answer
>Neo-pastorialism with antibiotic characteristics
>antibiotic characteristics
What does this mean, exactly?
it means they use penicillin instead of letting you die from a scratch
the only correct answer
Yikes
>yikes
we get it you like to get pegged
>Voluntarily Post-agrarianism
A sad, yet stable view of the future if humans who use technology select themselves for extinction.
>Interplametary colonial homeostasis
The most likely and sadly uninspiring trajectory of humanity. Most planets are boring barren rocks.
>K-selective techno Darwinist-Exitism
Nukes have pretty much guaranteed our own destruction. If humans are to live past another 10,000 years, humans must escape earth and be able to hide/shield themselves from genocidal cultures that are doomed to emerge.
>Panspermia Genisis re-enactment society
The holy grail for humans is for is to play God with the near infinite amounts of planets and possible lifeforms evolution can manifest. A never ending cycle of learning to help us evolve into the next stage of consciousness.
Neo-Predator life seems cool if I got big animal wiener to frick b***hes with
frick me, I bugged
You guys realize that Dyson Sphere mean you are building one and have no reason to stop at one, if only as a backup?
Terraforming planet is pointless since you'll want technology anyway, sure everyone love gardening but by that point a simulation will just save you time.
In fact Terraforming might be no from Neo-pastoralism where "maintaining medicine" mean keeping your God-like immortal body.
Luxury ruralism seems max comfy
Nearest neighbor isn't for 50 miles, auto hauler just took off with your harvest for another planet, you're sitting on the roof of your two story ranch house watching the bots pull in to refuel for the evening shift. The sun is setting, wind is a nice calm breeze with white fluffy clouds streaking across the sky, lemonade in your hand, there's a pot pie cooling on the countertop downstairs and a movie already picked out.
Life is good.
Is 14 the school from Ouran Host Club?
Yeah. The Culture series depicted this pretty well. Chill out on your robot-managed estate in an idyllic corner of a ringworld. Teleport into town when you get stir-crazy and need company.
>Gets buck broken by the Big Black Ball
Isn't the Victorian one just Code Geass? As in that's where that image is from?
Which one lets me put "my" brain in a digital jar to spend ages in virtual comfy worlds?
bottom left corner
Whoops, you've accidentally selected [CENOBITE TORTURE OUBLIETTE], best of luck on your next eternal existence not being such a huge homosexual!
Cybernetic neo-predator mind transfer
Dyson Sphere cultivation for me.
Why would I settle for less? I can simulate any of the other choice as I wish.
Whoops, you've been filtered, turns out this choice was a test.
<Dyson Sphere Manager>
<pause all simulations>
<select all simulations>
<delete_entity -publish_report>
<report: all simulations quality +90%>
<resume all simulations>
Hahahaha he still thinks he's in the sphere.
No entity with any kind of power would waste the movement of a single electron making you happy.
Automated luxury ruralism seems comfy
So are these real descriptors or is it an amateur academic having a laugh?
Can't deny I like art deco
Luxury ruralism is the only answer
all of these suck
i just want the future the early 2000s promised us
>transparent plastic shells in you choice of colors
>mp3 players
>unergonomic UIs with buttons that look like glass
We were cheated out of our birthright
>the iPhone goes down as a wacky idea that fell to the more practical flip-phone
>windows 11 is a stand alone product and clippy has been the official mascot for years
>VR is clunky and cumbersome and that's the only way to shop online
>endless chilled dnb piped into common areas 24/7
>Colored hair isn't a huge red flag
What is dangerous about Fully Automated Luxury Ruralism? Do cyber-serfs need to be put down sometimes?
Be it the nature of all things to end. Not having a care in the world for generations will soften minds and erode vital knowledge.
Am I gonna be the only one to choose cybernetic neo-predator mind transfer?
Art Deco trains-centrist secular messianism and Benevolent Gothic-styled cyber-thearchy for maximum kino /aesthetics/
Post-scarcity neo-Victorian perma-Academia looks comfy. But that neo-predator mind transfer though...
Best is star fort, not pictured because OP wants you Black folk to die in the other ones while he rules the world.
>Best is star fort
wrong
looks like a crashed ship
based Rödbergsfortet enjoyer-kun.
I19 represent! (pbat)
i choose the nuclear plant powered laser castle on the moon that i can shoot anywhere on earth with
Anybody who knows their history would know Top Left is the most viable option.
>much harder for the enemy to surround you
>constant supply of water
>allies can help you resupply via the river
Top Left is the only one where you can hold up indefinitely instead of for weeks or months.
Top Left is clearly the best option. First it is stone walls. Second it has two rivers making it difficult for the water supply to be cut off. It has a small access road that runs along the wall and will make it difficult for many men to amass on either the gate or walls allowing archers to cut them down. The river seems deep on the right and the ridge indicates that they cannot move an army down its slopes to man launches so I have to worry about boats from only one direction. It is also easy to get resupply as allies can use either river to travel down it to attempt to resupply us. We can also attempt to fish at night with nets as there is the crane gate in the wall that fishermen can descent at night and attempt to get some additional food into the fortress. If the enemy tries to harass they have to run along the tight shore while getting peppered with arrows.
The enemy have a slight advantage in the ridge next to my fortress top wall allowing them to fire arrows into the fortress easier. But compared to some of the drawbacks of the other forts I think it is minor.
None. I'd much rather have a well-trained citizenry who are properly indoctrinated and willing to fight. Lycurgus of Sparta had the right idea: tear down the walls and the false security they provide and make the citizenry become a living wall against foreign invaders.
for me, it's mont st michel but with french removed
>mont st michel
>no frogs
that's just st michael's mount then
>we have mont saint-michel at home
poos love to replace natives
Is that castle/monastery actually unimpregnable? With 14th century tech and logistics I mean.
It's impossible to siege effectively due to the flooding and can be easily resupplied during high tide.
any large force trying to march across the mud flats would lose all cohesion very quickly and arrive at the wall extremely fatigued.
you could launch small boats with raiding parties during high tide, but the defenders would easily spot you from their vantage point and could concentrate their defenses quickly.
I've been thinking about this for years, and I can't come up with a plan that seems like it would defeat St. Michel.
I choose the middle as it has room and is defensible.
The middle one could last longer in a siege as they can grow food inside the walls.
Precisely. It really comes down to situational relevance and need.
bottom left is kino
bottom right is most practical
>water
>stone construction
>space for crops and people
Middle>Bottom R>Top L>stone>top L
water is your friend
You say water is your friend and then rate the one without a stream as the best one? That moat is so stagnant I’m getting tuberculosis from the thumbnail
missed that, good call
mid is now #3. Still better than the last two.
Bottom right. I would make it my life’s mission to expand the fortress across the river and make it a full circle
Easy
>Picrel
First one is a literal Pskov fortress
I saw where star shaped forts were best because pretty much no matter where you attack someone can shoot at you from behind.
Presuming 3's water is a river joining with the coastal sea, 3. If the water in is just a river, and can be sabotaged, 5 instead
Found mine. Teeline shorthand.
Smart placement of the gate on the top left, any force wanting to go through the gate would be funneled with their backs against the water.
Goods from ships are also craned in from the docks so there isn't a second entrance for the enemy to breach.
Whatever one is best for fricking b***hes and throwing out the trash afterwards.
either the first or the last one due to fresh water supply trough a river, all the other ones seem hard to manage
River access is key unless you have infinite supplies in there. I choose 7 it's far more spacious than 1 and completely isolated from land.
Special mention to the desert fort which armies besieging will bake in their open planes.
Bottom left. Just get some wells inside to have running water supply
In the end, there can be only one.
RAMIREZ
now that is cool as frick
literal god tier fort, minus modern bunker bombs
>Frick, how are we gonna get the Japs out of there?
>Pour a shitload of fuel down into the fort from the top and light it up with a time bomb after all our guys get to a safe distance
Brutal. Talk about fried rice.
I take the castle on a hill. If i would want to invade the other stuff i tell the men that you could die in a blink of an eye but you can also build something for a while. I wouldnt use ladders but rather ramps that suit the height of those walls.
>Wooden doors
Good luck keeping enemies out.
Middle one for the farmland potential. Would add beacon towers and guard towers, an underground section also dig the water pit deeper + wider so that the water level is below ground and can't be built over so quickly.
What if I just walk around this?
like that would ever happen
I wouldn't worry about it
Delete this, but you know said with one of those accents that's french and gay.
That was the point of the line iirc, to make the G*rms avoid the literal Great Wall of Guns and herd them into pre-planned killzones.
It's just that no one thought the G*rms would drive their armored battalions through a fricking forest and give the assembled armies a collective wedgie.
Belgium didn't build their planned section of the line, and problems with communication and lack of initiative on the part of the French command allowed the Germans to pass through the Ardennes unopposed. German High Command itself considered attacking through the Ardennes as massive gamble and were shocked by its success.
I think the other powers allowed Belgium to pass on their segment for the exact same reason. The idea that any nation could move an army, much less a mechanized army, through the Ardennes was considered such a pipedream at the time that building fortifications in the area would be like putting anti-tank mines in the Grand Canyon.
The belgians did originally build their section of the Maginot Line, but they built it in land that they had gained from germany as WW1 reperations. When they gave it back to germany in the 30s, they ended up giving up their part of the defence as well. That's why they instead relied on a mobile army, supported by the British Expeditionary Force (that the Belgiuns insisted couldnt enter their country unless war was declared) that got it's shit kicked in by the more mobile and less fractured German Panzer Corps in less than three weeks.. The entire War in France was lost because of the fricking Belgians.
Ha! Good luck with that, the Brits and the Belgians are guarding the northern unfortified part, you will never defeat....Ack!
#
#
#
#
To build something like that, did the French just build a massive hole and put the defenses inside it then cover it or did they do it via tunnels and whatnot?
Dug a hole, built a giant concrete castle, then buried it. The interconnect tunnels though where dug like normal tunnels are though.
>Casemate
More like checkmate, namsayin'?
1 and 5 look cozy, and you can come out of your little secret door to do some fly fishing.
3 looks like the water will get fetid and not support life.
4 is neat, but what will you eat?
Here is Karlsborgs fortress, still in use by the military, it's basically a little town hidden behind some very impressive earthwork and walls, this pic does not do it justice so i will post a few more, i would recommend you google it and check it out tho
Uuf
Bottom left, but the interior is staggered land plots like Machu Picchu. Grow a shitload of sweet potatoes for the tubers and the leaves, frick yeah.
Get the phosphorous out of chicken shit for our fertilizer, and dump the residual waste at any c**ts at the bottom of our walls. Oxen will provide milk, and also work the wheels that will pump water to the top of the structure to trickle down each plot to a reservoir at the bottom.
Who's laughin' now?
>turn on all the water
>run out of water immediately, killing every single person in a week instead of keeping them alive indefinitely
How stupid is this concept?
Imortan Joe kept the water reservoir full, it was Furiosa who decided to leave the tap open until it ran out... because desert nomads were thirsty.
His water sharing method via giant waterfall was still extremely wasteful, like motherfricker place pumps all around or something not this shit
the waterfall was used as a ritual display of power to cement Imortan Joes position as Prophet and Patriarch of the War Boys. It was done for entirely religious and political reasons.
Yeah but it was still really inefficient
post apocalyptic dieselpunk isn't supposed to be orderly or efficient, they're techno-barbarians, that's the point.
Not for what he used it for, autist.
That couldnt possibly be a natural reservoir due to the geography so somebody created a reservoir in that rock formation and pumped in water from beneath the ground.
It's totally feasible that in a postapoc situation all human-made wells are dry and only the few people who can drill extremely deep wells with surviving equipment can claim everything left of the natural groundwater supply (the process of drawing groundwater would also draw the waterline down, leaving any nearby wells even further away from it)
What I'm saying here is, it has to be the well that immortan joe is monopolizing, and not just the reserves. He fills the reservoir regularly and wastes most of it as a show of power. She is also wasting the water as a show of power because even if Furiosa is a better ruler she is still establishing her power - but she has a deep well to use to actually distribute water from then on
Easily bottom left, speaking as an engineer
>arid location means that enemies cannot hide in forests, have to approach in plain sight
>tall design means you can rain down arrows at enemies from a long distance and too tall for siegecraft
>lots of internal space to stockpile resources
>lack of resources in the surrounding area means that sieges cannot utilize existing farmland or hunt, burning through resources quickly
>water supply cannot be sabotaged or poisoned due to using groundwater wells underneath the fortress
>no rivers so immune to naval attack (heavy cannons mounted in ships that can break through walls)
>enemy cannot break a dam upstream and flood your fortress
>hidden caves in natural rock can be used to escape is absolutely needed
Easy choice
Am I stupid or is it made of wood?
It just seems extremely vulnerable to being set on fire.
You could put mud/plaster on the outside, same like wattle & daub.
But yes, it's really dumb (outrageously expensive and less effective) to use wood instead of stone/bricks if you're building fortifications in a desert environment.
The thing that amazed me about these is that the side that faces the enemy is buried under a small hill. Each bunker is completly protected from direct fire from the enemy. It has a couple of small turrets on the roof to cover that approach, but the bunkers main weapon ports (MGs, autocannons, mortars, etc) point sideways, to hose the land just in front of it's neighbours. They formed an interlocking chain across along most of the french/german border, with additionally support from heavy artillery bunkers set a fire miles back. They were the reason why the germans went around the sides through the Ardennes and Belgium, looping around behind the North part of the Maginot line after kicking the Belgies and Brits out of the way in just a couple of weeks. After Dunkirk, some forts carried on fighting for over a month afterwards, surviving constant 88 fire and stuka bombings.
All are no match for a horse-riding Mongolian with a slave built Chinese siege machine.
rip best thread on /misc/
What do they eat?
fish, I assume
I hate fish.
I hate starving
Isn't bottom left the actual fortress that the assassin one in the first Asscreed is based on?
Is this now the small castle thread?
I only posted it because that's the Castle AAAARGH
Bottom left is some Conan Exiles shit
>Choose your fortress
EZ
i like my forts like my women
underground
Something close to the sea
New Orleans Star Fort
Top left or bottom right, any castle that can be resupplied by river or sea is inherently more difficult to take.
Top left, plain as day. Could block the waterway quite easily if you're going to be attacked, to prevent any ships coming down it. Then all you have to do is defend the section facing land.
top left
one river for shit-garbage
one river for drinking/bathing
>one river for shit-garbage
>one river for drinking/bathing
Anon...
...it's not two river it's upstream first then downstream
>Builds a shitty moat that can get blocked or built over.
THE OCEAN IS MY MOAT, FRICKERS.
>moving enemy ships are impossible to hit with canons
>but they can easily target your stationary defenses
You would find rape is the option.
Bottom right. Top left is more defensible but bottom right has more interior farmland and the big threat is always starvation.
When I was a kid I walked over an old motte every day and only found out as an adult that there was a castle there
>bring a sword to an artillery duel
Bottom left
Top left is superior, you can fish
Bottom left because it’s cool
Bottom left really looks like a fantasy design - does anybody know if the picture is related to a real structure?
>Choose your fortress
3 or 7 as both of them are capable of exploiting & controling their waterways.
>be old as frick king
>live in mountain castle
>all those stairs
>Jørge!
>Fire the toroedoes!
Any fortress can be sieged and starved.
I love fort threads
They’re so comfy
Bottom left but the real fortress is deep beneath the earth near the caverns